163 university academics join calls for planning reform bills to be withdrawn

Some 163 University of Malta academics and researchers have joined calls for controversial bills and legal notices proposing sweeping changes to planning law to be withdrawn.

In a statement Tuesday, professors, lecturers, researchers and PhD students said bills 143 and 144 “will overhaul Malta’s planning system, grant excess power to the Planning Authority and suppress people’s access to justice in this area.”

Endorsing the demands of the Ġustizzja għal Artna (“Justice for our Land”) campaign against the reform, academics joined calls for the “immediate withdrawal” of the bills, the “urgent introduction” of freezes on developments under appeal and “genuine consultation” on the proposals.

The statement follows the Ġustizzja għal Artna campaign yesterday issuing a fresh appeal outside Planning Authority (PA) offices for the government to withdraw the bills ahead of a planned protest on Saturday.

“Carrying out such a reform without serious studies risks negative ripple effects and unforeseen impacts across many sectors, from health to employment, to transport and livability”, the statement read.

On Bill 143 – overhauling the planning process – academics said it would grant “wide discretionary powers to a small group of people within the PA, concentrating decision-making within it and making it more powerful than Parliament and, in some respects, the courts”.

Academics said the empowered group within the PA would be able to change zoning defined by local plans, override “higher-level planning documents, and ignore environmental and sanitary considerations in its decisions”.

The bill would also grant the minister responsible the power to “arbitrarily reinstate expired permits”, the group said. Planning Minister Clint Camilleri, speaking to Times of Malta last month, has pledged to remove that clause.

“It [the bill] introduces the concept of vested rights in the planning sector, risking irreversible damage and obstructing the introduction of future planning and environmental safeguards.”

Turning to Bill 144 – overhauling appeals – academics said it “contains numerous provisions that severely limit citizens’ access to justice”, and “alarmingly, would also strip the courts of their power to revoke irregularly issued permits”.

The group pointed to provisions in the bill obliging those seeking to appeal a development to only cite objections raised during the application stage and new powers handed to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) to change applications during appeal and impose “unappealable and hefty fines for undefined ‘frivolous or vexatious’ appeals”.

Academics also pointed to legal notices for a planned government amnesty on illegal developments within outside development zones (ODZ) – typically in the countryside – and a concession acknowledging the existence of illegal developments.

“This planning reform is deeply problematic not only because of its content but also because of the process that produced it. There was no public and transparent consultation prior to the tabling of the Bills in Parliament,” the statement read.

A recent public consultation on the bills was announced by the prime minister following pressure from activists.

“Only after a public outcry did a perfunctory consultation process take place in August and September. Moreover, the government has presented no studies or evidence demonstrating the needs being addressed by this reform or its potential impact,” academics wrote.

“In view of this, we urge the government to withdraw the two Bills and three legal notices and to issue a White Paper on planning reform... Meaningful consultation from the design stage is a fundamental principle of good governance and sound democracy.”

Speaking to Times of Malta last month, the planning minister pledged to renege on certain proposals in the bills while insisting the plans were “well-intentioned”.

Most significantly, he said he plans to withdraw a contentious clause in Bill 143 that would have given the Planning Authority (PA) the power to deviate from existing planning laws and policies.

The clause has been a focal point of criticism, with opponents arguing it would grant the PA unlimited power and make it nearly impossible for citizens to appeal decisions.

When the bills were first announced – tabled quietly in Parliament shortly before the summer recess – activists described them as “a developer’s wish list”, “dismantling nearly all remaining legal safeguards” and “nothing short of a full-scale takeover by developers".